Xiaomi Wins Patent Battle Against GE After Nearly 5 Years

CNBC AI News, July 25th – Xiaomi Corp. has emerged victorious in a protracted, nearly five-year-long patent battle with GE Video Compression LLC, a former founding member of the HEVC Advance patent pool (later Access Advance), according to recent reports.

China’s Supreme People’s Court released a ruling on July 22nd, detailing the final verdict in an administrative lawsuit concerning patent invalidation.

The court sided with Xiaomi and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), rejecting GE Video Compression’s appeal and upholding the decision to invalidate the patent in question. This move effectively shields Xiaomi from infringement claims related to this specific technology.

HEVC Advance, now known as Access Advance, is a patent pool comprised of numerous companies holding patents essential to the H.265 standard. These entities typically leverage the pool to collect licensing fees from device manufacturers.

The dispute originated in August 2020, when GE Video Compression, along with other patent holders within the HEVC Advance pool, filed an infringement lawsuit against Xiaomi in Germany due to the latter’s failure to reach a licensing agreement. This legal action threatened to disrupt Xiaomi’s European operations and potentially stifle its growth in a key market.

In response, Xiaomi strategically pursued an “active invalidation challenge.” In February 2022, the company filed a request with the CNIPA to invalidate the patent at the heart of the dispute. After a five-month review process, the CNIPA declared the patent invalid, a crucial first win for Xiaomi.

GE Video Compression subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, seeking to overturn the CNIPA’s invalidation ruling. However, the court dismissed the lawsuit, reinforcing the initial decision.

Undeterred, GE appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, which heard the case on April 1st, 2025. The Supreme People’s Court rendered its final judgment on July 22nd, upholding the invalidation of the patent. The court’s rationale centered on the patent’s lack of inventive step, a key requirement for patent validity.